You are obviously a well informed poster, however the fact that you have gone against the Marvel bias here is why this has happened.

Superman has beaten Hulk and Thor, no comments can change that, but some posters will do anything to try and cast doubt on that and remain biasied against published results set out to provide an answer.

To be fair, i have yet to see anyone even try to say that Superman didn t won those two fights that he did. He has beaten them in a specific occasion (and failed to do so in a couple of others where the fight stopped before it was decided), no one is arguing against that.

What people ARE arguing about here, is the leap of logic from this to it being a one sided road that proves inherent superiority in a general sense. If taking a single fight is meant to be a proper way to compare characters, anyone could make up an argument for their own favourite as long as they restrict the data to exactly the ones that dont disprove them. I could prove that a random character could ko superman easily most of the times by that same logic, if i ignore the times it didn t happen or just tweak a story to mean more than it did, even getting wrong a lot of aspects of it willingly. My point was that there is a wider context and varied levels of potential that a character can bring to bear in different situations well within their character concept, and the result must keep in consideration all prospectives, plot effects and similar that could be part of a comic book story on both sides.

I think a comparison between characters should consider all aspects of a character and reconcile both the high and the lows, and consider the narrative role and plot influence on said fight without adding our own bias if possible. It doesn t matter if they are marvel or dc, if you guys had been talking about only dc characters, the logic would still have been flawed